Re: Propose a new function - list_is_empty
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-08-17T13:48:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> writes: > There are some places that add extra parenthesis like here > while (list_length(sortclause) > list_length(previous) && > - list_length(new_elems) > 0) > + (new_elems != NIL)) > Is it necessary to add that extra parenthesis? I'd drop the parens in these particular examples because they are inconsistent with the other parts of the same "if" condition. I concur with Daniel's point that parens can be useful as a visual aid even when they aren't strictly necessary --- but I don't think we should make future readers wonder why one half of the "if" is parenthesized and the other isn't. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Avoid using list_length() to test for empty list.
- efd0c16becbf 16.0 landed